Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A – Extension of Time for Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction of Court – Divergent views of High Courts on whether application under Section 29A(4) lies before High Court or Principal Civil Court depending on mode of appointment of arbitrator – Supreme Court reframed issue holding distinction to be artificial and unnecessary – Held: Application under Section 29A lies before “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e), irrespective of whether arbitral tribunal was appointed by High Court under Section 11 or by parties by consent [Paras 5–6, 16, 20–24].

Statutory Interpretation – Defined Term “Court” – Section 2(1)(e) – Contextual Interpretation – High Courts relied on perceived hierarchy and conflict of power to exclude Civil Courts from Section 29A jurisdiction – Supreme Court rejected interpretation based on notions of superiority or hierarchy of courts – Held: Jurisdiction flows solely from statute and not from perceived institutional status – Definition under Section 2(1)(e) must apply unless statute expressly provides otherwise [Paras 17–20].

Arbitration Law – Section 11 – Nature of Jurisdiction – Appointment of Arbitrator – Scope – Power of High Court or Supreme Court under Section 11 is special, limited and stands exhausted upon appointment – Appointing Court becomes functus officio thereafter – Held: Section 11 does not confer any continuing supervisory or controlling jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings or over applications under Section 29A [Paras 13–15, 23–24].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(6) – Power to Substitute Arbitrator – Concern that Civil Court may substitute arbitrator appointed by High Court – Supreme Court held such concern legally unfounded – Power of substitution is statutorily vested in Court defined under Section 2(1)(e) – Appointment under Section 11 does not alter statutory curial jurisdiction [Paras 16, 20, 24].

Arbitration Proceedings – Section 42 – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Applicability – Argument that Section 11 application before High Court attracts Section 42 rejected – Held: Section 42 does not apply to Section 11 proceedings as Chief Justice or designate is not a “Court” within meaning of Section 2(1)(e) – Extension application under Section 29A must therefore lie before Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa set aside – Order of the Commercial Court extending time under Section 29A restored – Parties at liberty to seek further extension before Commercial Court – No order as to costs.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Professional Misconduct – Disciplinary Proceedings – Withdrawal of Complaint – Appellant-advocate held guilty by the Bar Council of India for alleged failure to ensure timely deposit of costs leading to dismissal of quashing petition – During pendency of disciplinary proceedings, complainant filed sworn affidavit withdrawing allegations and expressing satisfaction with advocate’s services – Held: Once the complainant withdraws the complaint and substratum of allegations ceases to exist, continuation of disciplinary proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 5–7, 10].

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 38 – Statutory Appeal – Scope of Interference – Disciplinary Committee ignored material evidence in the form of sworn affidavit filed by the complainant – Failure to consider amicable settlement and withdrawal of grievance vitiates the disciplinary order – Impugned judgment liable to be set aside for non-consideration of vital material on record [Paras 7–8].

Professional Ethics – Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Proof – Finding of professional misconduct recorded without examination of complainant on oath and without affording right of cross-examination to the advocate – Held: Mere bald allegations in the complaint, without supporting evidence, cannot form the basis for holding an advocate guilty of professional misconduct [Para 9].

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council of India – Penalty – Imposition of Fine and Suspension – Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- with default suspension of one year imposed on advocate – Supreme Court held the order to be wholly unsustainable on facts and in law and set aside the same [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 04/04/2025 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India set aside – No order as to costs.

Public Interest Litigation – Demolition of Construction – Scope and Limits – High Court directed demolition of a completed residential building on privately owned land on the assumption that it was constructed on “khoai” land and in violation of environmental norms – Supreme Court held that demolition is a drastic and extreme measure which cannot be ordered on conjectures, assumptions or inferential reasoning without clear statutory backing and unimpeachable evidence – Interference with property rights must satisfy Article 300A of the Constitution [Paras 41–44, 56].

Land Use and Town Planning – “Khoai” Land – Legal Status – No category of land known as “khoai” exists under the revenue laws of West Bengal – Subject plot recorded as “danga” land and earmarked as “residential” under the Land Use and Development Control Plan, 2002 – Held: Descriptive, literary or ecological notions of “khoai” cannot substitute statutory classification or notification for imposing construction restrictions [Paras 6–7, 24(D), 40–43, 47].

Environmental Law – Reliance on Inspection Reports – District Magistrate and Pollution Control Board – High Court relied on reports to conclude that construction was illegal – Supreme Court found that neither report conclusively established that the subject plot itself was “khoai” land – Reports were based on conjectures, lacked scientific or technical assessment, and at best referred to adjacent areas – Held: Adjacent ecological sensitivity cannot automatically render privately owned residential plots non-developable [Paras 45–47].

Local Self-Government – Building Permission – Competent Authority – Gram Panchayat, Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti – High Court held Panchayat Samiti alone competent to grant permission – Supreme Court held that during the relevant period, consistent practice showed building plans were approved by Gram Panchayat with vetting by Zilla Parishad – Even assuming lack of competence, it constituted a curable procedural irregularity – Held: Such irregularity cannot justify demolition of a completed structure undertaken bona fide [Paras 33–36].

Conversion of Land – “Danga” to “Bastu” – Timing of Conversion – Conversion granted after commencement of construction – Supreme Court held that land-use classification is a revenue entry – Subsequent approval and regularisation by competent authorities, in absence of fraud or mala fides, cannot be ignored – No statutory mandate requiring demolition as an inevitable consequence of delayed conversion [Paras 34–35].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Sustainable Development – Santiniketan Area – Sui Generis Character – Court reaffirmed heightened responsibility of authorities in Santiniketan as laid down in Sushanta Tagore – However, preservation must operate within statutory framework – Held: No equality in illegality, but equally no presumption of illegality without law – Past or existing constructions cannot be selectively ignored to target one builder [Paras 12–13, 36–37, 55].

Public Interest Litigation – Bona Fides – Burden of Proof – PIL petitioners themselves owned residential structures within the same tract of land – Selective targeting of one construction undermined bona fides – Burden lies on PIL petitioners to establish illegality with clear, cogent and contemporaneous material – PIL cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary adjudication [Paras 48–55].

Adverse Remarks against Statutory Authorities – Expunction – High Court directed initiation of proceedings against officers of SSDA, Panchayat and Revenue Authorities – Supreme Court held such directions unsustainable in absence of deliberate violation or mala fide conduct – Subsequent compliance and corrective measures by SSDA noted – Adverse remarks and consequential directions expunged [Paras 57, 21].

Costs – Abuse of PIL Jurisdiction – Writ petition found lacking bona fides – Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on writ petitioners payable to West Bengal Legal Services Authority [Para 58].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment and order dated 21–22 August 2013 passed by the Calcutta High Court set aside – Directions for demolition, compensation and costs quashed – Adverse remarks against SSDA expunged – Costs imposed on writ petitioners – No order as to costs in appeals.

Election Law – Scope of Interference in Appeal – Tenure Lapsed – Merits Not Examined – High Court declared appellant’s 2012 election void on ground of improper rejection of 955 postal ballots – Supreme Court notes tenure (2012–2017) already lapsed and declines to go into merits of election dispute – Held: Appeal not to be adjudicated on merits in present circumstances [Paras 1-2, 4, 8].

Election Petition – Interim Stay – Effect – Protection of Benefits – High Court’s operative directions not implemented due to Supreme Court stay dated 05/09/2016 – Appellant contended that benefits flowing from stay should not be denied if merits are not examined – Held: In interests of justice, adverse observations/directions of High Court in paras 53-56 set aside in view of subsisting interim stay and lapse of tenure [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Directions – Expunging Observations – Costs/Adverse Remarks – Withholding Benefits/Pension – Action Against Returning Officer – High Court’s observations included alleged delaying tactics by returned candidate – directions/observations that appellant should not get election benefits/pension as ex-MLA for 2012 election period – and recommendation of strict action against Returning Officer – Held: Observations in paras 53-56 of impugned order set aside while leaving merits untouched [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court observations in paragraphs 53 to 56 set aside – Merits of election petition not examined due to lapse of tenure and in view of interim stay operating since 05/09/2016 [Para 8].

Recruitment – Teacher Grade III (Level I & II) – Erroneous Answer Key – Expert Committee – Revised Merit List – High Court directed constitution of Expert Committee and preparation of fresh model answer keys – Directions not challenged by State – Revised results led to displacement of earlier selected candidates – Held: Consequential equities to be balanced in terms of earlier unchallenged judgments [Paras 3-6].

Selection Process – Concession by State – Binding Effect – In Mukesh Kumar Tailor case State conceded to accommodate candidates who secured more marks than last retained candidate subject to vacancies – Said concession not withdrawn or challenged – Government Resolution dated 04.09.2017 taken to implement directions – Held: State bound by its concession and subsequent policy decision – Cannot resile at later stage [Paras 9, 16].

Appointment – Interpretation of “Vacancies Available” – Whether vacancies include unfilled advertised posts or current vacancies – Clarified that vacancies include posts unfilled due to non-issuance of appointment letters, non-joining, resignation, etc. – Availability of substantial vacancies not disputed – Eligible candidates falling between last appointee in first list and cut-off of revised list entitled to consideration [Paras 10-12, 17].

Equitable Relief – Protection of Earlier Appointees – Candidates appointed under first list and retained pursuant to judicial orders not to be disturbed – More meritorious candidates in revised list to be accommodated against available vacancies without ousting earlier appointees – Balance of competing equities maintained [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Seniority – Inter-se Seniority to Avoid Further Litigation – Direction issued that seniority be maintained as per revised merit list – Newly appointed candidates to be placed at bottom according to merit – State at liberty to provide opportunity while determining seniority – Object to curtail future disputes [Para 18(v)].

Relief – Confined to Litigating Parties – Benefit restricted to respondents and intervenors who approached Court up to date of judgment – No further claims to be entertained – Decision rendered in peculiar facts based on State’s concession [Para 19].

Decision:

Civil Appeals dismissed – Directions of High Court in Mukesh Kumar Tailor case reaffirmed – State directed to:

(i) Prepare fresh list of respondents/intervenors falling between last candidate appointed in first selection list (27.08.2012) and below cut-off of revised selection list (02.09.2013) within two months;

(ii) Verify documents and issue appointments within further two months;

(iii) Grant salary from date of joining with notional consequential benefits;

(iv) Offer appointment in nearby district if vacancy not available in concerned district;

(v) Maintain inter-se seniority as per revised merit to prevent further litigation.

Wakf Act, 1995 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Scope and limits – Section 83 – Nature and ambit – Held: Section 83 does not by itself confer substantive jurisdiction on the Tribunal – It merely enables constitution of the Tribunal – Jurisdiction must flow from specific provisions of the Act – Interpretation in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reaffirmed [Paras 15, 37, 44–47].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Ouster under Section 85 Wakf Act – Not absolute – Exclusion applies only to matters required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal – Presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction reiterated – Held: Tribunal jurisdiction and civil court ouster are confined strictly to powers expressly conferred under the Act [Paras 13–15, 18, 47].

Wakf Property – Determination of status – Sections 6 and 7 – Mandatory requirement of inclusion in ‘list of auqaf’ or registration under Section 37 – Held: Tribunal can decide whether a property is wakf property only if it is specified in the list of auqaf or entered in the Register of Auqaf – Properties outside the statutory list cannot be subjected to Tribunal adjudication [Paras 12, 14, 30, 44, 50].

Wakf by User – Claim based on recent user – Mosque allegedly established in 2008 – Requirement of long and immemorial user – Held: Question left open – Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide ‘waqf by user’ claim when property is not notified or registered as wakf [Paras 6, 50].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Injunction simpliciter before Wakf Tribunal – Property not notified or registered as wakf – Held: Suit before Tribunal is barred for want of jurisdiction – Plaint liable to be rejected – High Court erred in affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 4, 5, 50].

Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 – Expansion of definition of ‘list of auqaf’ under Section 3(g) – Nature of amendment – Held: Amendment is procedural and clarificatory – Enables Tribunal to decide disputes relating to properties entered in Register of Auqaf under Section 37 – Does not enlarge Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond statutory framework [Paras 30–36].

Section 83 Wakf Act – Misinterpretation in later decisions – Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg considered – Held: Expansive interpretation of Section 83 contrary to earlier binding precedent – Coordinate Benches could not have taken divergent view without reference to Larger Bench – Ramesh Gobindram continues to hold the field except to the limited extent of eviction of encroachers post-2013 amendment [Paras 28–29, 39–49].

Eviction and Encroachment – Power of Tribunal – Source of jurisdiction – Held: Power to remove encroachers flows from Section 54(3) & (4) and not from Section 83 – Amendment Act, 2013 only removes the bar noted in Ramesh Gobindram regarding eviction – Does not otherwise expand Tribunal jurisdiction [Paras 12, 46, 49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Wakf Tribunal and High Court set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Suit before Wakf Tribunal rejected – Question whether property is a wakf left open to be agitated before competent forum in accordance with law [Paras 50–51].

Land Acquisition – Railway Projects – Excess Compensation – Collusion Allegations – Scope of Setting Aside Awards – Award of compensation for land acquisition under Railways Act set aside by High Court on ground of excessive compensation and collusion between certain land owners and officials – Question whether such setting aside ipso facto nullifies awards of all land owners including those not implicated – Held: Allegations and inquiry confined only to specific beneficiaries – Entire acquisition award cannot be invalidated wholesale – Relief can operate only against tainted beneficiaries [Paras 2, 9–11].

Natural Justice – Non-Impleadment of Affected Parties – Effect – Writ petition by Railways challenging award impleaded only five land owners out of 550 beneficiaries – Appellant not arrayed as party nor alleged to have received excess compensation – High Court erred in extending effect of judgment to non-parties – Orders passed in proceedings to which appellant was not a party cannot prejudice his vested rights [Paras 7, 9–12].

Arbitration – Enhancement of Compensation – Power of Review – Railways Act, 1989 – Arbitrator enhanced compensation under Section 20-F(6) – Subsequent administrative orders kept enhancement in abeyance and later cancelled award – Held: Neither Competent Authority nor Arbitrator has statutory power of review under Railways Act or 2016 Rules – Cancellation of award without jurisdiction unsustainable in law [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Law – Colourable Exercise of Power – Limits – Inquiry and FIR lodged against specific officials and land owners for unjust enrichment – Appellant neither named in inquiry nor subjected to prosecution or refund proceedings – No finding of similarity in quantum or unjust enrichment qua appellant – Mechanical extension of adverse findings to appellant held arbitrary and illegal [Paras 9, 12].

Judicial Review – High Court Error – Failure to Distinguish Individual Claims – High Court failed to appreciate that challenge before it was limited to specific respondents – Setting aside arbitral and original awards affecting appellant without factual or legal basis amounted to egregious error – Supreme Court interfered to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 14].

Relief – Restoration of Award – Disbursement Directions – Orders keeping enhanced compensation in abeyance and cancelling award set aside – Original award dated 12.02.2018 and arbitral enhancement dated 28.06.2019 restored – Direction issued for payment of balance compensation with applicable interest and solatium within three months – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgments and consequential administrative orders set aside – Compensation and enhanced amounts restored – Directions for disbursement with interest and solatium – Pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – Employees’ Contribution to PF and ESI – Deductibility – Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) – High Court held that employees’ contribution deducted from salaries constitutes income of the employer and is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statutes – Employer’s contribution under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees’ contribution under Section 36(1)(va) held to be fundamentally different in nature – Non-obstante clause of Section 43B held inapplicable to employees’ contribution – Alom Extrusions distinguished for not considering Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Income Tax – Interpretation of “Due Date” – Employees’ Contribution – Conflicting Judicial Views – One line of authorities holds that delayed deposit of employees’ contribution beyond the statutory due date under PF/ESI Acts disentitles deduction notwithstanding payment before filing of return – Another line of authorities applies Section 43B and allows deduction if payment is made before due date of filing return under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court notes divergence of opinion among High Courts across the country [Paras 5, 8–10].

Income Tax – Section 43B – Scope – Employees’ Contribution – Prima facie view that employees’ contribution held in trust by employer continues to be income unless deposited within statutory due date under PF/ESI laws – Explanation 5 to Section 43B noted as not having been considered in earlier decisions forming one view – Matter found to require authoritative determination by Supreme Court [Paras 6–7, 11].

Decision: Notice issued on the Special Leave Petition in view of conflicting High Court judgments on allowability of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI – Returnable in four weeks – Dasti service permitted [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Interpretation – Not a Standalone Provision – Issue whether Section 175(4) operates independently or in conjunction with Section 175(3) – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (4) are not isolated silos – Power to order investigation flows primarily from Section 175(3) – Section 175(4) provides an additional procedural safeguard where complaint is against a public servant – It neither stands alone nor operates independently of Section 175(3) [Paras 24–26, 31, 37–39, 42].

Statutory Construction – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Not a Proviso – Question whether Section 175(4) is to be read as a proviso to Section 175(3) – Held: Not a proviso – Provision does not carve out an exception but introduces an additional safeguard absent in CrPC – Placement as a sub-section and ability to operate even if Section 175(3) is removed militates against proviso construction [Paras 32–36].

Judicial Magistrate – Power to Order Investigation – Mandatory Preconditions – Magistrate can exercise power under Section 175 only after complainant exhausts remedy under Section 173(4) – Resort to Superintendent of Police is a mandatory statutory step – Direct approach to Magistrate impermissible – Sequential statutory scheme must be respected [Paras 31.1–31.2].

Affidavit – Mandatory Requirement – Complaints Against Public Servants – Though Section 175(4) uses expression “complaint”, term cannot include oral complaints – Context requires written complaint supported by affidavit – Affidavit requirement under Section 175(3) read with Section 333 BNSS applies equally to Section 175(4) – Any other interpretation would defeat safeguard laid down in Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 37.4–37.9, 41, 44].

Public Servants – Additional Threshold Protection – Legislative Intent – Section 175(4) introduced to prevent frivolous or vindictive complaints against public servants – Requires Magistrate to call for report from superior officer and consider explanation of accused public servant – Protection operates at pre-investigation stage and is distinct from sanction requirement under Section 218 BNSS [Paras 27–30, 40].

Lalita Kumari – FIR Registration – Limited Applicability – Principles of mandatory FIR registration govern police action under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS – Once matter reaches Magistrate under Section 175 BNSS, statutory procedure therein governs – Lalita Kumari does not override Magistrate’s duties under Section 175 [Paras 16–19].

Judicial Magistrates – Discretion under Section 175(4) – Practical Guidelines – Where prima facie offence appears connected with discharge of official duties, Magistrate must follow Section 175(4) safeguards – Where doubt exists, Magistrate should err on side of caution – Where act clearly unrelated to official duty, Magistrate may proceed under Section 175(3) alone – Magistrate may reject complaints that are absurd, improbable or untenable with recorded reasons [Paras 45–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Premature Interference – Bar – Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition while proceedings under Section 175 were pending before JMFC – Judicial order calling for report under Section 175(4) could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction – Directions issued without challenge to Magistrate’s order held impermissible [Paras 49–53].

Judicial Orders – Recall by Magistrate – Impermissibility – Single Judge’s directions effectively compelled Magistrate to recall his own judicial order – Such power unknown to criminal procedure – Magistrate’s subsequent FIR direction rendered unsustainable [Paras 52–53].

Public Servants – Discharge of Official Duties – Fact-Dependent Determination – Whether alleged acts arose in discharge of official duties requires factual assessment – Writ court cannot undertake magisterial fact-finding – Issue must be left open for determination by JMFC under statutory procedure [Paras 54–57].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – Order of Single Judge set aside – Magistrate to proceed strictly in accordance with Sections 175(3), 175(4) and 333 BNSS – No direction for immediate FIR registration – Appellant granted liberty to raise all contentions before JMFC – Parties to bear their own costs.